Friday, September 12, 2008

Aether and Lorentz invariance

The concept of Lorentz invariance is basic postulate of special relativity theory and one of most deeply misunderstood concepts of Aether theory, being considered incompatible with relativity in general. The true is, the light speed invariance can be derived easily from Maxwell's Aether theory of light, based on transversal wave spreading. As I demonstrated already, the ability of luminiferous Aether to spread the light of whatever energy density effectively implies the very dense environment and the transversal character of energy spreading (which is required for casual spreading of information) in it, because the sparse Aether cannot spread the EM waves of whatever energy density. Therefore the famous Michelson-Morley experiment (MMX) shouldn't be used for disapproval of Aether theory - but for effective confirmation of it, instead. It shoud be noted, with contrary to widespread belief the negative result of MMX cannot serve as a confirmation of relativity, because the light speed invariance isn't theorem, but a postulate (i.e. sort of axiomatic tautology) in special relativity theory.

Another general source of Aether misunderstanding is the common belief, the concept of particle environment isn't compatible with light speed invariance and the relativistic physics in general. This is nonsense, because the common interpretation of Galileo transform isn't compatible with relativistic Lorentz transform. The spreading of sound wave in air cannot be considered as analogy of light spreading in vacuum, until we consider the sound wave as the only source of information including the time and distance intervals measurement, i.e. by the same way, like during light spreading in vacuum. The common understanding of wave spreading in particle medium usually involves at least TWO kind of waves (the light wave, used for time/distance measurement and the studied/observed wave itself), while during light spreading in vacuum the only kind of energy spreading can be considered (the light wave serves here both as the subject of observation, both the mean of observation). This general inconsistency in experiment interpretation leads to the (false) conclusion, the Newtonian mechanics and the invariance of energy wave speed in particle environment is incompatible with the light speed invariance (and the relativity theory in general). As we can see, it's just a result of fundamental inconsistency of experimental arrangement, instead. Therefore MMX cannot give a positive result, simply because it’s virtually impossible to detect every environment just by it’s waves. If some particle is serving for wave spreading, it cannot be observed just by this wave and nothing very strange is about. No object can serve as a mean of it’s own observation and the inner and outer perspectives cannot be mixed.

The similar mistake consists in widespread belief, the absence of reference frame excludes the existence of luminiferous Aether, the particle environment in general. In fact, no particle in such environment cannot serve as an subject of observation and the mean of observation at the same time, therefore the absence of reference frame is the natural consequence of energy wave spreading inside of such environment, if we make sure, the same kind of wave is serving as object and mean of observation, i.e. by the same way, like during light spreading in vacuum. As the waves in particle environment are mixture of longitudinal and transversal waves in general, we can follow the above rule and the absence of reference frame most efficiently at the cases, when only transversal wave spreading prevails - for example at the case of capillary waves spreading along water surface, which is driven by surface tension (nearly) completely. With respect of these waves the water surface is behaving like thin elastic membrane with (nearly) no underwater (motion/reference frame) at all - so we can see clearly, the transversal wave spreading in particle environment is really background independent and no additional postulates are required to consider here.

By analogous way, we cannot observe the water surface by using of water waves and nothing very strange is about. The water surface will always appear as a void, empty space from surface waves perspective, because it just serves as an environment for these waves. The common observation of water waves by light waves cannot serve as a direct analogy of observation of light waves by using waves in vacuum, simply because in vacuum only one kind of waves can be always involved in experiment - the waves of light. So here’s nothing strange about different results of "classical physics" experiments, which were made in different arrangement(s). This doesn’t mean of course, the classical mechanics differs from reality conceptually - it just means, we aren’t observing wave phenomena by the same way, like during experiments in vacuum - that’s all. The Lorentz invariance (symmetry) of Aether is valid as long the transversal character of wave spreading is retained. Because the transversal wave spreading is the only causal way of information spreading considered for human creatures, the Lorentz invariance follows automatically from unitary time arrow and vice-versa: the quantum uncertainty related to multiplicity of time arrows and longitudinal energy wave spreading is equivalent to Lorentz symmetry violation.

Note that the transversal wave is the case, where the energy spreads by the slowest speed through such environment, i.e. here's a minimum of the celerity / wavelength dependence. This makes the environment as large, as possible from internal observer perspective - so we can say, the Universe appears so large for us just because of transversal character of light spreading. It's somewhat surprising, these fundamental connections were revealed after nearly four hundred years after postulation of particle luminiferous Aether concept by R. Descartes (1644) and Ch. Huygens (1678) on behalf of positivistic, ad-hoced (i.e. belief based) consideration of relativistic postulates.

"All our attempts to make ether real failed. It revealed neither its mechanical construction nor absolute motion. Nothing remained of all the properties of the ether except that for which it was invented, i.e., its ability to transmit electromagnetic waves. Our attempts to discover the properties of the ether led to difficulties and contradictions. After such bad experiences, this is the moment to forget the ether completely and to try never to mention its name."

15 comments:

Michelson, imagines that when measuring the speed of light with a toothed wheel and a mirror (a system devised by Fizeau) that requires the light to follow a path of return is the same as measuring the speed of light in one direction.

And because it detects variations in measurements, it is believed, that is measuring something consistently, and not surprised that his experiment nothing 1887 getting a steady speed, but if there is "ether wind" measuring the speed of light according to the method of Fizeau practically annuls the wind by doing a thousand times lower.

ZZaper puts the question about discrepancy in infamous question, whether Einstein was aware of the Morley-Michaelson experiment BEFORE his 1905 relativity paper, and if he was aware of it, to what degree did it influenced his 1905 paper.

Albert Einstein was interested about Aether from his young age, therefore I consider quite improbable, he wouldn't be familiar with M-M experiment.

Albert Einstein: "The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."

In general ethical people have nothing to hide, but the tendency to caginess or even masonry is typical for offstring of nation, who lived jeopardized on main trade route between three continents for whole centuries.

How is it possible, after then, the same equations predict/enable to derive light speed invariance, which was confirmed by M-M experiment, which is generally believed to disprove just the model, on which these equations are based?

Counterexamples to RelativityThe Pioneer anomaly. Anomalies in the locations of spacecraft that have flown by Earth ("flybys").[2]Increasingly precise measurements of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury show a shift greater than predicted by relativity, well beyond the margin of error.[3]

The discontinuity in momentum as velocity approaches "c" for infinitesimal mass, compared to the momentum of light. The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass - does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass? The observed lack of curvature in overall space.[4]The universe shortly after its creation, when quantum effects dominated and contradicted Relativity. The action-at-a-distance ofquantum entanglement.[5]

The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics. The change in mass over time of standard kilograms preserved under ideal conditions.[6]The uniformity in temperature throughout the universe.[7]"The snag is that in quantum mechanics, time retains its Newtonian aloofness, providing the stage against which matter dances but never being affected by its presence. These two [QM and Relativity] conceptions of time don’t gel."[8]

The theory predicts wormholes just as it predicts black holes, but wormholes violate causality and permit absurd time travel.[9]

Counterexamples to RelativityThe Pioneer anomaly. Anomalies in the locations of spacecraft that have flown by Earth ("flybys").[2]Increasingly precise measurements of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury show a shift greater than predicted by relativity[3]

The discontinuity in momentum as velocity approaches "c" for infinitesimal mass, compared to the momentum of light. The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass - does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass? The observed lack of curvature in overall space.[4]The universe shortly after its creation, when quantum effects dominated and contradicted Relativity. The action-at-a-distance of quantum entanglement.[5]

The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics. The change in mass over time of standard kilograms preserved under ideal conditions.[6]The uniformity in temperature throughout the universe.[7]"The snag is that in quantum mechanics, time retains its Newtonian aloofness, providing the stage against which matter dances but never being affected by its presence. These two [QM and Relativity] conceptions of time don’t gel."[8]

Data from the PSR B1913+16 increasingly diverge from predictions of the General Theory of Relativity such that, despite a Nobel Prize in Physics being awarded for early work on this pulsar, no data at all have been released about it for over five years.

The lack of a single useful device developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress.[11] This stands in stark contrast with every verified theory of science. Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction. This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions.

Relativity requires that anything traveling at the speed of light must have mass zero, so it must have momentum zero. But the laws of electrodynamics require that light have nonzero momentum.

Unlike most well-tested fundamental physical theories, the theory of relativity violates conditions of a conservative field. Path independence, for example, is lacking under the theory of relativity, as in the "twin paradox" whereby the age of each twin under the theory is dependent on the path he traveled.[12]

The Ehrenfest Paradox: Consider a spinning hoop, where the tangential velocity is near the speed of light. In this case, the circumference (2πR) is length-contracted. However, since R is always perpendicular to the motion, it is not contracted. This leads to a paradox: does the radius of the accelerating hoop equal R, or is it less than R?

The Twin Paradox: Consider twins who are separated with one traveling at a very high speed such that his "clock" (age) slows down, so that when he returns he has a younger age than the twin; this violates Relativity because both twins should expect the other to be younger, if motion is relative. Einstein himself admitted that this contradicts Relativity.[13]

Counterexamples to RelativityThe Pioneer anomaly. Anomalies in the locations of spacecraft that have flown by Earth ("flybys").[2]Increasingly precise measurements of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury show a shift greater than predicted by relativity[3]

The discontinuity in momentum as velocity approaches "c" for infinitesimal mass, compared to the momentum of light. The logical problem of a force which is applied at a right angle to the velocity of a relativistic mass - does this act on the rest mass or the relativistic mass? The observed lack of curvature in overall space.[4]The universe shortly after its creation, when quantum effects dominated and contradicted Relativity. The action-at-a-distance of quantum entanglement.[5]

The inability of the theory to lead to other insights, contrary to every verified theory of physics. The change in mass over time of standard kilograms preserved under ideal conditions.[6]The uniformity in temperature throughout the universe.[7]"The snag is that in quantum mechanics, time retains its Newtonian aloofness, providing the stage against which matter dances but never being affected by its presence. These two [QM and Relativity] conceptions of time don’t gel."[8]

Data from the PSR B1913+16 increasingly diverge from predictions of the General Theory of Relativity such that, despite a Nobel Prize in Physics being awarded for early work on this pulsar, no data at all have been released about it for over five years.

The lack of a single useful device developed based on any insights provided by the theory; no lives have been saved or helped, and the theory has not led to other useful theories and may have interfered with scientific progress.[11] This stands in stark contrast with every verified theory of science. Relativity requires different values for the inertia of a moving object: in its direction of motion, and perpendicular to that direction. This contradicts the logical principle that the laws of physics are the same in all directions.

Relativity requires that anything traveling at the speed of light must have mass zero, so it must have momentum zero. But the laws of electrodynamics require that light have nonzero momentum.

Unlike most well-tested fundamental physical theories, the theory of relativity violates conditions of a conservative field. Path independence, for example, is lacking under the theory of relativity, as in the "twin paradox" whereby the age of each twin under the theory is dependent on the path he traveled.[12]

The Ehrenfest Paradox: Consider a spinning hoop, where the tangential velocity is near the speed of light. In this case, the circumference (2πR) is length-contracted. However, since R is always perpendicular to the motion, it is not contracted. This leads to a paradox: does the radius of the accelerating hoop equal R, or is it less than R?

The Twin Paradox: Consider twins who are separated with one traveling at a very high speed such that his "clock" (age) slows down, so that when he returns he has a younger age than the twin; this violates Relativity because both twins should expect the other to be younger, if motion is relative. Einstein himself admitted that this contradicts Relativity.[13]

Do you believe in the solution of the special relativity to the twin paradox? I mean do you believe that if one twin go away very fast in a spaceship toward a near star and the other is at rest in the Earth, then when the travelling twin comes back to the earth and meets with his brother, the travelling twin is still a young man meanwhile the twin at rest in the earth is an old man? How does AWT solve this paradox?

I'm sorry Zephir, but the aether doesn't exist. This fact was experimentally proved by Michelson and Morley in 1887. Because of this AWT is doomed. AWT is simply wrong. Anyway, you can't solve the twin paradox using the AWT formalism. This assertion is evident because you don't use math. How do you know what time is measured for one observer if you don't use math? Suppose I told you that I had found a new model of financial engineering to win a lot of money in the stock exchange but this model doesn't use math what would you think?

The energy spreads through particle environment it two dual ways and Michelson-Morley experiment refused just the longitudinal wave spreading. But light is spreading in transverse waves and this model agrees with M-M experiment well.

Regarding the twin paradox, AWT is not required to compute it independently - everything what it does is the explanation of relativity postulates and relativity can be used for the rest of derivation without change.

Happy New Year to you, too. I hope this year I'll find a job at the end. As you probably know, I'm unemployed despite my age, I'm 32 year old, but there isn't problem because I'm living with my parents, and I've got most I need, although I've not got a girlfriend yet :-(. My mother thinks I'm a disaster :-D. I'm not so bad after all, my friends are unemployed people, too :-D. Moreover the unemployment rate, here in Spain is 20.05 % :-D. Spain is a good country for fun not for work :-D.

As to an Introduction to the Theory of Relativity – one must read this statement what Einstein self made to introuce the world:-

I am anxious to draw attention to the fact that this theory is not speculative in origin; it owes its intention entirely to the desire to make physical theory fit observed fact as well as possible. We have here no revolutionary act but the natural continuation of a line that can be traced through centuries. The abondonement of a certain concept comebued with space time and motion hitherto treated as fundamental must not be regarded as arbitrary but only conditioned by observed facts. The law of constant velocity of light in empty space which has been confirmed by the developement of the electrodynamics and optics and the equal legitimacy of all inertial systems (special theory of relativity) which was proved in a particularly incisive manner by Michelson’s famous experiment, between them made it necessary, to begin with, that the concept of time should be made relative, each inertial system being given its my special time. . . . . . . . It is , to work out the relations between general concepts and empirical facts more precisely. The fundamental principle here is that the justification for a physical concept lies exclusively in its clear and unambiguous relation to facts that can be experienced.